Legal commentary published through blogs has emerged as a significant new mechanism for scrutinizing the conduct of legal professionals and the positions taken in litigation.
Venkat Balasubramani, writing for the blog Spam Notes, authored an insightful guest column on the AvvoBlog arguing that blog coverage functions as a modern check on the potential for overzealous or hardball litigation tactics by attorneys.
Increased Scrutiny and Case Examples
Across a range of high-profile matters, blogs have been instrumental in drawing national attention to deficiencies in a litigant’s position and the systemic risk that parties lacking substantial resources could be overwhelmed by the expense of litigation.
Notable examples cited include the BlockShopper and Nordstrom/Beckons affairs, as well as the Kentucky domain-name seizure case. Furthermore, in various gripe-site and reputational-claim actions, the Streisand effect has frequently come into play, where attempts to suppress information inadvertently amplify its visibility. In these instances, blog coverage helped to highlight the legal and ethical implications of the proceedings.
Bloggers as Accountability Monitors
Balasubramani specifically acknowledged the contributions of several legal bloggers who actively monitor and critique litigation excesses.
He noted:
Walter Olson: who blogs at Overlawyered is another blogger who frequently flags unreasonable positions taken by lawyers. While he monitors litigation excess generally, absurd tort lawsuits are his specialty, and many a plaintiff’s lawyer has graced the pages of his blog in shame.
The column concluded with a reflection on the overall positive impact of this heightened visibility:
Increased scrutiny of legal decisions and lawsuits by blogs and internet commentators will have undoubtedly have an overall beneficial effect. … Lawyers these days live in fear that one of their lawsuits will be highlighted on the pages of sites such as Overlawyered, the Legal Satyricon, or the Volokh Conspiracy. I know I sometimes do.
This commentary suggests that the digital age, through legal blogging, has imposed an additional layer of public accountability, influencing attorneys to proceed with greater caution and professionalism in their representation.
